Appeal 2007-0025 Page 29
Application 09/792,151
the other three references; they address different problems. … The Examiner
makes no showing of the state of the art at the time of the invention evidencing that
those skilled in the art appreciated the problems solved by the present invention”
(Appeal Br. 20-22).
9. Appellants also argued that
the [Examiner’s] motivation is not suggested by any of the cited references.
The Examiner solely alleges that the motivation would have been that such a
combination that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated
to combine the reference in order to charge better rates for advertisements
that are deemed more effective. First, the phrase "better rates" is subjective,
as an advertiser would not want to pay a higher rate as punishment for their
ability to create or write an effective advertisement. Additionally, an
advertiser might not want to share the sales information with another
company. Such a conclusory statement is insufficient to show a motivation
or suggestion to modify the references.
(Appeal Br. 22).
C. Principles of Law
We incorporate herein the Principles of Law set forth in the Principles of
Law section for the rejection of claims 2, 7-9, 15, and 16 above.
D. Analysis
Appellants argue that there is no suggestion to vary the advertisement rate
based upon these sales. However, Appellants concede that “Dedrick teaches
varying the advertisement rates, and Angles teaches varying advertisements rates
based upon requests by a customer” (FF 7). Furthermore, it is well known that
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013